something about the way you speak to the camera makes me want to beat the shit out of you, and definitely not listen to you. Ethos Pathos Logos you inept clown.
he doesnt seem to understand that a private institution bought our government in 1913. maybe he thinks ben bernanke was chosen by congress as a candidate for his job. perhaps he is just so immersed in this system that he cannot see his way out of it. either way hes in for a wild ride if he looks into it. ABOLISH THE FED! the charter runs out in 4 years!
also, agreed that they got tons more power than other businesses. Lots of corporations get unfair advantages though and they're still private...though are usually referred to as partially public.
And you hit the nail on the head that it doesn't happen through the free market. It only happens when big business gets in bed with government.
And agreed on Chomsky. You once again hit the nail on the head. People should be wary any time someone uses the mantle of humanitarianism to spread tyranny.
It's a private bank...but I see nothing wrong with that. It's not in their interest for the US economy to be bad. I'm just against the notion of central planning...but hey if it is going to happen then might as well be done by someone who knows what they're doing.
Agreed with you on NAFTA. It's really managed trade. Free trade wouldn't need all sorts of regulations etc.
The way you speak is condescending and frustrating. Furthermore, perhaps you should consider that PHD. Noam Chomsky has been studying issues such as this for longer than you have been alive. I don't believe I'll be subscribing to this channel, since I feel your trying to get hits by patronizing intellects that are far beyone your scope of worldly perception.
The federal reserve is a Private sector of the government. It is designed to help other privately owned systems. However, it was publicly created (long time ago). Therefor it is even worse than a normal private organization. IT IS A NATIONAL SOCIALIST COMPANY. Hmm... I remember something that used this National Socialist label. Go find out.
I think you're confused about what is "public" and what is "private". The Fed might be in some ways public, but it's job is to protect private interests. It's shareholders are private banks like JP Morgan Chase to whom the they sold Bear Stearns stock for $2 a share. It could be called public because it doesn't collect profit within it's self. But it is private as in it is not accountable to the people of the government and plays to the needs of its private shareholders.
quote "So yes, the Federal Reserve is a "private" bank, but they are a private bank who has been given enormous amounts of special privileges and rights..."
I find by READING Chomsky, that he links every single one of his assumptions with fact, for example he defends Palestinians because they are denied liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness by Israeli fences, attack helicopters, and the denial of rights. Now you oppose this because... he's a hypocrite... now it sounds as though you are the hypocrite here and he is not.
Public institution in this country means by the people, of the people, and for the people, whereas a private institution in this country usually means for profit, or for me. What you just said sounds like a very good arguement just to sit on our asses and watch the world whisked away by profit incentives and not public incentives. When Congress cannot tell what is going inside the Fed, that means this is a conflict between private and public institutions. Dont just listen to Chomsky, Read him.
Now, what I just said means, by the meaning of words, means that Congress is held to coin money and regulate the value of it. Noam Chomsky kind of relates everything he says to historical fact. You might want to check the membership of the Federal Reserve, oh nevermind, you can't. Public institutions MEAN that they are INSTITUTIONS controlled by PUBLIC ENTITIES. The Fed is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. A PRIVATE INSTITUTION MEANS THAT IT IS CONTROLLED BY PRIVATE ENTITITES.
If you'd like free trade I think that you would be opposed to the Fed. If you don't like state-run capitalism you would also be opposed to the Fed. If there is no list of membership, and a governmental institution made by the people, of the people, and for the people, cannot even figure out what is going on inside of it. Furthermore, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states :To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures...
LUKE, if the Fed is public then show me or tell me where I can find a list of the banks that comprise membership. Fractional banking is the biggest scam on the face of the planet.
Both you and Chomsky are entitled to your opinions, however, the more valid one is the one that can be supported with factual evidence. I've seen his, where is yours? Arguing over the meaning of "public" and "private" is meaningless.....it's actions, not words that matter.
its a public bank in the sense that congress created it (under a somewhat shady vote).
its NOT a public bank in the sense that its ownership is PRIVATE. the shareholders include some of the biggest banks, lender, finaciers... including jpmorgan/chase.
just wait til you stupid fuckers go to your bank and they say "sorry - outta money"
DO NOT put any of your USD into a bank account. spend it immediately (trade it for actual commodity) do not keep USD. they are losing value so fast. buy gold?
It's all based off the central bank ideology from Europe. Federal Reserve is a private bank, you can see that in 2004 when they bailed out a Private company(Bear Sterns) and let JP Morgan & Chase buy it out for penny's on the dollar.(stock was worth $171 a share, JP bought it for $10 a share). Under your principles, that was taxpayer money(public) used then to bust out a private company. Technically illegal, but it wasnt because the Fed is not a public company.
Also. The its an ideological battle of princples against private institutions. That is to say, a private company will always be after it's best interest vs a public company. Granted most times those best interest correlate, where as any instition not after the best interest of the society it lives in is doomed. However understand that just because you live on the up side of those best interest, you are somehow immune to the negative effects of the institution. Institutions have no "patriotism".
It will look after it's best interest, and the best part about it, it can operate from just about anywhere. During the great depression, or rather transfer of wealth(caused by the Federal Reserve), was every single American in a depression? Of course not, just the majority, but that minority if anything got wealthier. So really the question you have to ask yourself, is whether you believe we have the ability to govern ourselves or if we need private institutions to do so. Chomsky believes we can
The bank called Fed reserve may call itself a public bank (because the federation supposively represents a public community called the US of america).. but that so called public bank acts VERY secretly and privately.
so lets see= the public bank only rewards those who help it become private..
it looks acts and sounds just like a private bank. So maybe i will call it what it is PRIVATE. I dont see you withdrawing out of it. o yes thats it the public service banking communy stole it and spent it on themselves but its still public honest
take the power back. please wake up to the blatent facts. the fed reserve is another name for the inbred jewish banking conspirators child raping community. You thaught you were safe from english (who took england hostage over 100yrs ago) hostage takers called the rothchilds and rockerfellers.
they are setting up the North American Union And are changing us dollars to the Amero, after they have crashed your economy, all to consolidate wealth and continue fucking your small children while u r 3
a bank is our bank when we can spend its savings. a bank is a private bank when we cant. if its just a safe with someone own private (personal) elses money/gold in it its their private bank.
Ok your bank acount is your private lot within a public bank. but a bank that you pay into and cant withdraw is someone elses private bank. you are giving money away.
Look the federal reserve was a stealth tax used in the name of social/national security when really its a bunch of inbred jews who kidnap kids
Luke, so confused..let me help. There's no 1 word that describes the Fed as far as its "public"/"private" character. When someone like Chomsky classifies an institution as "private" in the course of the 000's of other words used in analyzing the case, they mean it operates for profit of whoever owns it. The fact that govt. grants it privilege is another problem which Chomsky condemns..What would you have him do? Come up w/ 1 word to define what he clearly says about it overall..ridiculous!
DackBev, you may be right that govt profits, depends on your definition of govt (WHO are you talking about) and how you value the Fed's services vs. cost of the privilege given to private interests.
If by govt you mean the public it's supposed to represent, I disagree, don't think service is worthwhile.
If by govt you mean literally the beuracracy itself, yes it profits enormously from existence of Fed, smoke & mirrors enabling huge financing & private privilege cost is just marginal issue.
Year man, didn't quite understand all of your comment but i now you disagree with this videos determined meaningless. I think if a bank that calls itself public but act just like a public bank , then you have a choice whether or not to believe a lie and call it public (and therefore fuck up your brain with wrong understanding / perception of public) or you can call it what it appears to be (and Is progressively turning into)
No matter how you slice it, public institutions in general are much more accountable than private institutions. This only works however if people pay attention because the people have more power over the public than the private. Also the thing I don't get about libertarians/anarchists, is the massive distrust of government, yet the seemingly blind faith in privatization. Both of them are powerful people who shouldn't be trusted.
Individuals making up a local community within an extended order of human cooperation need not be any less adept at displaying atruism or group solidarity than members of a "tribal society". Indeed, there is much lore of small town hospitality and community where nobody locks their doors, and there is truth to these accounts. But the breakdown of our value system has changed things. Intervention through central command, a central gov't, is not compatible with any extended order of men.
Perhaps we may begin to agree here. I argue that communities cannot be engineered. I oppose all "central planners" and "social engineers". A "government" may be justified only so far as it is useful to keep the peace, to keep marauders at bay. The core of my opposition is with the interventions of bureaucrats and distant do-gooders into matters for which they hold no understanding nor legitimate authority. I resent that our representatives act as toddlers playing with gasoline and matches.
Moreover, I resent that so many seem to embrace such intervention into their lives and communities. How can we change this? The only way I know is for people to talk about it. Hence, why I take the time to write this. Sadly, I'm convinced that things have to get really bad before enough people desire fundamental change. Yet I doubt that the conditions are such that people will make a change for the better. I fear and expect that Americans will continue to look to D.C. for solutions.
Another reason why it's not private is that it's controlled by the Board of Governors, who are appointed by the government. True private property is not only not given special privileges by the government but also is not controlled by the government.
We did not create property, not by decree. It developed over much time as a tradition. Theft became taboo, and was later prohibited by religions. The group(s) that adopted it for whatever reasons advnanced over those that did not. This process brought other traditions and institutions to prominance including money, trade, honest, contract, etc. As these were more widely adopted, productivity increased. These traditions and institutions are required for any successful "society".
The traditions and institutions that have developed over thousands of years are required to sustain civilization as we know it. Property, money, trade, honesty, contract, and laws to enforce these are required to sustain any expansive cooperation of men. Without these, your collectivist anarchy could not advance far above the primitive tribal groups that we see today. The U.S. is in decline today precisely because these traditions and institutions are no longer respected as they were.
Your error lies in assuming that instincts such as altruism and group solidarity, necessary for sustaining humans in tribal settings, are sufficient to form and to maintain the extended order of human cooperation that exists today. Human cultural evolution over thousands of years selected traditions and institutions that make civilization possible. We did not select them; they selected us. Some of these include saving, property, trade, money, honesty, contract, and rule of law.
These traditions and institutions that characterize individualism (classical liberalism) were required for humans to advance beyond a primitive hand-to-mouth existence, and they are also necessary to sustain civilization. Reverting back to the altruism and group solidarity characterized by the various collectivist experiments during the 20th century must lead to a steady decline in viability and increase in human suffering. And the evidence bears this out.
fr3thinker, I focus on money a lot because I've come to understand well how fiat credit expansion causes the business cycle. The cyclical misallocations of capital caused by inflation, essentially taking us 3 steps forward then 2 steps back, prevents an incalculable quantity of wealth from coming into being, and also tends to concentrate wealth. As the process continues wealth creation becomes nearly impossible without accelerating inflation, and at the risk of destroying the currency.
Well, we can't just scrap fiat moneys and go to gold suddenly. I like the idea of simply legalizing what Bernard von NotHaus has done. Let people make pretty gold and silver 'coins' and sell them on the market. People may keep them or trade as they wish. Sounds like freedom to me. I do believe that gold can be money today more easily than ever by incorporating digital accounting (debit cards) with gold warehousing, all done privately of course.
The gold debit card idea introduces a gold currency that would trade with fiat currencies according to a ratio that would change on the market like currency exchange ratios today. People could use a "gold card" sometimes, or use a fiat money card (for example, when the value of gold is rising). Governments would hate this because when they start inflating the people will more likely hold gold and spend the fiat money causing hyperinflation quickly, thus spoiling their inflation schemes.
Just a thought, but have you ever wondered that perhaps calling for everyone to "voluntarily communize their resources for the mutual benefit of all", in a sense honoring complete strangers, even those who may be perceived as enemies, above one's own family and friends, might just go against the grain of human nature? And maybe, must maybe mind you, enforcing such human behavior in many cases requires the brutal tactics that we've come to associate with collectivist experiments?
The point is that they weren't all panning for gold then, and we all wouldn't do it today either. Only a handful of people can turn a profit in gold exploration. It's a silly notion that should be dropped. Inflation - most of it occurred after 1970. Are you not concerned that the average CPI is so much higher than your "3-5%" standard that you invoked earlier? Are you concerned that the real CPI is today nearly 10%? Your Federal Reserve Note, by your own standards, is not stable.
(1)Please explain how a "more industrialised world" necessarily requires a fiat currency? If the world became "more complex", then wouldn't an international currency (i.e. gold) simplify monetary transactions? (2)There is plenty of gold available, and money is not only a medium of exchange, but should also be a store of value (a quality sorely lacking in the Federal Reserve Note). (4)A central bank would not likely have the discipline required to remain on a gold standard for long. But...
... we can return to a gold standard incrementally by introducing a parallel gold standard to compete with the Federal Reserve Note. After all, the Constitution states plainly that no State shall "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".
I will be happy to address all of your points a bit later, but until then I hope that you will discuss my former response on the rampant inflation of the Federal Reserve Note and how it conflicts with your discussion of fiat monetary stability. One at a time please, it gets really messy otherwise.
Gold was money during the industrial revolution that saw productivity gains greater than today. Why were so many people starting businesses and working in factories during the late 1800's? Why were they all not "panning for gold"? What conditions today (if any) make it such that a return to gold as money is simply not possible? Also, please address my former post on the rampant inflation of the Federal Reserve Note.
Are you concerned with the inflation engineered by the Fed since its inception, especially since 1971 when the Federal Reserve Note severed all ties to gold? The FRN has lost value during the last 40 years by a factor of about 12 (an average annual CPI of about 7%). The real CPI today is approaching 10%. Any comments on the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar from 1789 until the advent of the Fed remained nearly constant (during which time the dollar was defined as 1/20 ounce of gold)?
Question: What do you mean by "stable form of money supply"? I consider a commodity money (gold) to be far more stable than any fiat money. I hope you will clarify your position.
There's 'public problems' perpetuated by 'private institutions.' Look at Blackwater! Luke, I have compunctions with your thoughts on 'private institutions' and 'free market,' because you continusouly fail to see the havoc it bestows on devloping countries. You seem to acknowledge it, but remain in denial in order to maintain Your definition of these said things Luke, the FDR is a private institution ok. Likewise, NAFTA symbolizes the western concepts of free trade.
Calling Blackwater a "private institution" is problematic. As I wrote in an earlier comment, Blackwater is not quite "private" in the same sense that my brother's locksmith shop is a private business. In much the same way it's problematic to call NAFTA "free trade". Free trade doesn't require an act of Congress and hundreds of pages of regulations. As Ron Paul says, NAFTA is best called "managed trade".
mariasman100 - Perhaps it's 'problematic' for you but not for I my friend. Blackwater is a 'private' contracting security firm enlisted by the U.S. goverment to do their bidding while keeping their hands clean. They also were employed during Katrina. 'Private' institutions believe they're exempt from public regulation, hence why Blackwater agents kill with impunity.
We can draw dististinctions all day, but academia, world famous enonomicist like Joseph Stiglitz quality it as free trade.
You're merely playing with words here. Blackwater is enlisted by the U.S. government to do their bidding. The U.S. military is enlisted by the U.S. government to do their bidding. The gov't is gaming the system. For example, if the government decides to draft my brother (the locksmith) and force him to pick locks and circumvent security systems for the FBI to make sneak and peak searches under the Patriot act, then is my brother's locksmith shop still a "private" business?...
... Based on your arguments so far no doubt you will say yes. But, clearly, there is a fundamental difference. Indeed, what characterizes a "free market" and truly "private institutions" are the actions of sovereign individuals acting under freedom of association (w/o compulsion) and within a framework of laws (or traditions) that protect the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. Under this light it can be seen that my brother crosses a line once he starts breaking into homes...
...Likewise, free trade is nothing more than a free market without boundaries. Just as the actions of individuals are not arbitrarily restricted in a free market, the freedom for individuals to engage in trade across borders cannot be arbitrarily restricted to qualify as free trade. As I wrote before, free trade doesn't require an act of Congress and hundreds of pages of regulations, Joseph Stiglitz notwithstanding.
I'm 'merely playing with words?' And you're not? Go to Blackwater's USA home page. Under 'Company Profile' it clearly states that they provide solutions from the 'private sector' to the U.S. Government and non U.S. Government clients. Operating under the auspices of free association, because they're a private firm, they're able to market themselves to and influence the 'public sphere,' including state agencies. Of course they're 'gaming the system.'
So your brother's business is private institution I'm assuming? The state can't trangress it's own laws right? That would be illogical and the state is founded on 'reason.' However, it can circumvent it's own regulation by employing private institutions to achieve a desired end. You've got me, yes, I still think it's a private institution because it's legally defined as such (aspiring attorney). Like I was saying to Luke1200, to which he hasn't respondd to.
Like me my friend, you are very idealistic. I will say this - there is nothing which exist without 'boundaries' as you referred to them. Everything is grounded in a finite world, so to argue that something is/can be free of boundaries or limitations is not an accurate honest depiction of reality itself. Precisely why 'post-modern' theory doesn't work, including 'post-modern' economics.
Of course I've considered voluntary giving, but again, is it realistic? What obligates me to others?
Am I idealistic? I'm not so sure. I cannot permit what I see as contradictions to go unchallenged. This should be seen as practical and not idealistic. After all, contradictions don't exist. But of course there is so much play in the English language that wordsmiths are often tempted to choose a consistent argument in lieu of one that is consistent with reality. The two are not necessarily the same, of course. I'll go with natural law, and let others consider the "legal" definitions.
I would like to pursue thie matter further regardless of 'form (in a 'Platonic' sense)' and semantics for I too cannot permit contradictions to go unchallenged. I said you're ideal because you posited that something can exist without limitations, i.e. the market, and I simply disagree on that front.
Do you have a camera, because I would like to try and 'de-limit' this conversation. I prefer responding via vids. Anyways, could you further qualify 'natural law?'
As I suspected, it's all a matter of semantics, of definitions. Truthfully, we may as well be writing in different languages. I cannot accept a "legal" definition if doing so leads inexorably to a contradiction with natural law. Again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
(On Blackwater) There are fundamental differences between Blackwater and other organizations that are considered to be part of the "private sector". Therefore, a distinction, a qualification if you will, should be made. A failure to respect this difference and make this distinction will result in a contradiction, as rhetorical definitions often do. I suspect that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
I used 'Blackwater' as a 'mere' example to illustrate how private institutions can influence the public sphere. I don't understand the moment when a legally defined private institution becomes public just because it's utilized by public agencies. So yes, a distinction should be made! What are the differences between 'Blackwater' per se, and any other private firms that freely associate and market themselves to the state? I'ld like to know. Is it the degree to which they influence the public?
(on private/public institutions) The dynamics of what I consider to be a "free market" seems to break down with violations of the "rule of law", which I define as the condition where all laws in their respective jurisdictions apply to all individuals without qualifications. Futhermore, the government should recognize no entity beyond the individual. In other words, no special privileges...
...Beyond this 'ideal', there seems to be a gradient that extends from, for example, my brother's locksmith shop all the way to some of the actions of President Bush (a "public" figure), or even Blackwater (a "private" business). So, perhaps it is degree with which actions both violate the rule of law, and yet are sanctioned by the law itself that characterizes the "public sphere". Or maybe I'm just really cynical. ;-)
Indeed! There's always this gradient of measurement and I ask, who has the authority to make this judgement? Arguably, no one does, and here, you are right - we are playing language games. But since no one can make that call, I go off what history shows and tells me. I understand that a 'true free market' is probably the most ideal form of economics, but that's based on the assumption (an ideal one) that such an arrangement would be permitted to exist. Or perhaps I'm cynical as well!
;-) yeah, we're probably both a couple of cynics! I was typing out some more comments, but I really need more space to clarify my position. I'll be sending you a message in a bit, so if you have have to enable me to send it then please do so.
When I intervened the force of law, I hope I didn't do it in a manner in which it becomes the crux of my argument. If so, I apologize because I too don't really acknowledge the force of law. But practically, I do everyday, just like you! In order go onto Youtube, there's specific contractual agreements, albeit ones that none of us read, but yet we still acknowledge and abide to. Furthermore, in my eyes, law is applied discriminately, not indiscriminately - a power reserved to elitist.
I don't really understand the question posed here, if you brother isn't drafted but willing contracts to the government to engage in these activities what does that change? If instead of engaging in these activities for the government say GE has him engage in these activities on their behalf what is his shop then? Sure the US government is a larger organization than GE but I don't see any principled difference in terms of the resulting behavior.
(reposted) "But, clearly, there is a fundamental difference. Indeed, what characterizes a "free market" and truly "private institutions" are the actions of sovereign individuals acting under freedom of association (w/o compulsion) and within a framework of laws (or traditions) that protect the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. Under this light it can be seen that my brother crosses a line once he starts breaking into homes"
Essentially what I'm doing is arguing indirectly that the distinction between "public" and "private" is arbitrary. I am saying that whether or not behavior is just or unjust is the proper distinction. It's almost a defining feature of gov't today that they violate individual rights through force of law, whereas "private" organizations do not have this 'privilege', unless they enlist with the gov't (but here they are effectively just another arm of gov't). I believe it's an important distinction.
Good vid. Private institutions are... are... private institutions. Great!
People commenting that China is communist. Great when China constitutionally recognizes private property.
Slave wages caused by attack on free association. Awesome. Probably looking at one expected trend of the capitalist market: to create of an offer supply in the offer will be better. "Slave wages" are just the result of an oversupply in the workforce offer. What does free association has to do with this?
The road to torture. Make an update. The Fed is the new evil. Stating simple facts like the Fed benefiting the average US Joe can turn you into an annoyance. Just looking straight into the fact to see that the Fed has been helping to transfer real asset to the US from the rest of the world against an ever devalued money paper will make you no friend.
Look at the answers: the Fed is neither a private nor publci bank. Guys have found the root of all evil: the Fed. Better to listen to them.
or should work in some perfect pretend world in the future. He makes clear distinctions between the government, which is of the people, and the powerful state which is a necessity to private power and an existing violent and coercive corporate arm. Their private power is not your private power. Private corporations for the most part are hierarchical and non-democratic and yes absolutely tyrannical and it's foolish for you to equate with them and come out on their top-down behalf.
Not that will lead to their oppression, dear, that have led. Chomsky isn't a statist. It is yes a public problem, but there is in no way public ownership or control over these institutions. They are owned by private entities called corporations, which are not persons but are certainly treated as such under the law. Chomsky talks about 'really existing market theory' which is the way that things are actually working not the way they would...
I beg to differ. It is the boss, and the government officials follow their rules. The FEDs shareholders are also the people that "own" the CFR and the "UN." When you say "nobody 'owns' the CFR and the UN" I reply, "that is the wonderful thing about corporate America...Prove It"
(what I mean is few people have the resources to prove it [wonderful was sarcasm])
These are the "shadowy overlords" that the Onion video was referring to.
The federal reserve is a private bank in the sense that it has private individuals as shareholders who profit from its operation in much the same way shareholders of any companies stock do so. And yes the federal reserve is handed a state monopoly of sorts, much as many large 'private' companies receive massive state subsidies and legal protections and so forth. I can't say I understand your gripe with Chomsky here, I read a lot of his stuff, I don't agree with all of it but I generally...
find him to be pretty well informed and generally rational and honest. The primary issue that he seems to raise regarding these 'private institutions' is exactly how interwoven they are into the governments machinery and how they use that machinery to screw everyone else. I think I agree with your general sentiments but your message here seems misdirected, rambling and over all frustrated. Frustrating place this world of ours isn't it?
While there may be similarities, it seems to me that there are too many important differences to call the Fed a "private" bank, and certainly not in the same sense that my brother's locksmith shop is a "private" business. Of course, the "public" designation doesn't quite fit either. Perhaps "cartel" or "monopoly" are better terms?
What about when communist countries exploit its own people in order to create slave like labour that it can then sell out to the rest of the world for tremendous growth? What about socialist countries that create treat their own people like cattle, torture, and destroy opposition? Lets talk about China and the Soviet Union for a minute or two? Oh, you say they aren't true social/communists? Oh, well I believe Luke has mentioned he doesn't really believe "Capitalist" markets are truely capitalist
In 1913 Paul Warburg rewrote the US Monopoly rules "The Federal Reserve Bank" became a privately owned Central Bank free of Government control.
They also created the "Income Tax Act" & the IRS. These European banksters became "The Fed" in 1913 and have owned a virtual monoply over the US economy and the tax payers money ever since. The American people pay income tax to these bankster even though it is against the Constitution. Why???
Politicians and bankers should not be able to just make money and punish the majority for their mistakes. Just because it is popular doesnt mean it is the cool thing to do.
Money is merely a medium of exchange and arose separately from states, for technical reasons. Cows once served as 'money'. There is absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about it. It merely serves to facilitate exchange.
Without a government in China, Nike could still buy up people. Without a government anywhere, Nike wouldn't have to go to China. This is the market anarchist reality, and I'm sure many market anarchists agree with it.
Yep, they are the most efficient means to silently acquire funds, rather than taxation which is overt. Hence why more states adopt them, rather than this BS about 'stability' (though I am sure some people believe this rhetoric, just as some believe the war in Iraq was really needed - that is to say, they were misguided idiots.) The only 'stability' they insure is the state's.
agreed, but private armies did their share in supporting tyranny. One of the prime examples was the Thirty Years War. In fact they were the tyranny, much less supporting one. My point is, that no matter what system you have, you can't unring the bell. Knowledge of armaments and military science aren't going to disappear. Some asshole is going to use it.
The government and big corporations are very similar entities in the end - concentrations of power with coercive forces over people. I don't think you can really separate the two. Forces of power will always cooperate for more power, it is a natural phenomenon.
"Fascism is not anti-semitism, or militarism, or even corporatism. It is totalitarianism. It exists to whatever degree a government enforces through coercive means, directly or indirectly, compliance with an 'approved' means of living or manner of expression."
Lets be clear. The FR and BOC are "public entities" that are controlled by private interests...period. NAFTA is a joke. Leave out North and it's accurate. R2D4Shawn...the Star Wars reference was quite hilarious. Luke, use the force to keep it to a couple of minutes please...that's the real challenge.
"The FR and BOC are "public entities" that are controlled by private interests". I argue that ALL public institutions are (in some way) controlled by private interests.
One of my favorites! Sorry I didn't notice, but I'm not surprised. Based on the three videos of yours that I've seen in the last hour or so we tend to think alike.
Since when did Confucious give a shit about liberty?. He was a moralist that emphasized filial piety and social order. His philosophy is about obedience to the a moral code of ethics. This quote makes him sound more like Thomas Paine. My B.S. detector just went off.
Corporations are what put out this wage slavery. Corporations are private companies. The Federal Reserve Bank is actually part public part private. I understand your point although Its not entirely clear to me, the point the documentary was making was that U.S. corporations have gained too much power, and because the corporation its its own person, it can get away with wage labor in foreign countries through NAFTA. Email Chomsky your opinion, I have a couple times and he responds immediately.
How can you possibly judge the efficiency/efficacy of a monopoly that's established and backed by force? The only way you could judge that is to subject the Fed to competition in a free market.
It's like if I claimed to be the best boxer in the world but used a gun to prevent anybody from beating me. If I need a gun, I'm probably not REALLY the bet boxer in the world.
If the Fed (or any government monopoly) is so effective and efficiency, why are they so afraid of a little competition?
NAFTA isn't really about free trade? Oh noos! Next you're going to tell me that the Patriot Act doesn't actually have anything to do with patriotism. :(
P.S. I haven't forgotten about our rock off. I've jut been super busy moving into my new place and assembling IKEA furniture and all kinds of crazy stuff. Moving is a lot of work. I have my keyboard here though, so maybe I'll be able to rock your socks off tomorrow.
Your reverse psychology won't work on me Luke. Neither will your Jedi training, or the fact that Darth Vader is your father! Your ass is grass whether you like it or not, and I'm the lawnmower that's going to rock the hair right off your head. Maybe I'll mow you a mohawk with my rock! While I'm at it, maybe I'll have sex with your sister Princess Leia. How you like them apples Mr. "I wish I could rock it like the Shawn does"?
If my household engages in trade (barter based or currency based), than my household is a community that require goods to be imported, in other words our mini-society cannot be self-sustained. However I have done nothing immoral in the act of trading so to condemn me is absurd. THAT is why I don't agree with primitivists.
On a more serious note, I like to refer to the economic system we're under now as interventionism, since its obvious the factors influencing our market are not through free will and are instead tampered with by the state on a regular basis. Party Politics always boils down to who's going to "fix" the economy.
When Socialists are criticizing our current economic system, they are only criticizing the conditions of interventionism, so I don't pay attention to them. It acts as a giant straw man argument that a lot of criticisms tend to cling to.
You realize that your definition of 'private institution' is different than most peoples definition. Yet you think that they are the ones that have a misleading definition?
Who's most likely to have been mislead about certain words and concepts:
The person who is actually understood by most when speaking of those concepts because he has a similar definition.
Or the person who can't get his points across because his definition of concepts are completely different than everyone else's?
If I was misled into defining 'potato' as what we now call a tomato and started having a conversation about the concept of a potato with normal people. The confusion that would ensue would cause any rational person would realize that their definition of potato is completely off the wall and useless if nobody defines it the same way. No sane person would think that it's everyone else that has the wrong concept of 'potato' and they're all being misled.
Then define public/private. I know there are several definitions, I never disputed that. However, I defined my terms, while propagandists like you do not. I have no interest in faking respect for you, define your terms, and engage in intellectually honest debate, of go away (and stay away).
Especially given that we're discussing political economy/philosophy, clearly defined terms are necessary, given the concepts at play. The layman's conception of it simply will not do, as it is nowhere near precise enough and often so self-contradictory it isn't worth evoking. This isn't a case of substituting 'potato' for 'tomato', but clarifying how the terms work if they are to be meaningful at all. Before even arguing one must define their terms and justify the definition.
I dont really know what to think. I will say it does seem to be used to benefit a minority. I find central banks a threat to freedom with their monopoly over the money supply and using fiat money.
The way it was created was dishonest and some very powerful peole whos families still exist were behind its creation. It was not created to benefit regular citizens or liberty.
Stupid shit like this pisses me off, Luke. Chomsky didn't name NAFTA; why blame him for what the political elite decided to call it? Chomsky has made it clear numerous times that these bastards misuse Adam Smith when they use this term. So why beat him up over it?
My critisisms of Chomskey are about his deceptive use of words like "public" and "private", if you wish to defend Chomskey, please do it on these grounds.
"What if one of them went bust and you had all or most of your money in that currency or that bank".
This is what is happening to the federal reserve, so this is hardly an argument against privatization. Competing currencies are what allowed America to avoid the national debt being imposed by Britain. Competing currencies do not create any more problems that competing languages.
Were it a public institution you could find out who the shareholders were and how much money they printed this year. Congress would have oversight if it were public. It is not public. It is a private bank.
If the US government moves into martial law, and revokes all of it's obligations to the people, is it then private? When I say "public" I mean that it is part of the state? What is your definition of public?
In the context of government it is a government institution. If you want to talk about public restrooms that is a different. Turning over that much power to banks is the worst mistake this country has ever made. How would you describe the federal reserve to someone that believes it is a government agency without making them take a course in the meaning of words or etiology.
The federal reserve is a bank that has a state granted monopoly. Much like the army is a group of people with guns who have a state granted monopoly. Much like the post office is a bunch of mailmen who have a state granted monopoly. Referring to these institutions as "private" seems absurd. Once again, what is your definition of public/private?
Once again how would you describe the federal reserve to someone who thinks it is a government entity? I tried to answer your question at least try to answer mine.
"how would you describe the federal reserve to someone who thinks it is a government entity?"
The federal reserve IS a government entity, as much as the post office, the army, and the president of the United States. Perhaps I don't understand the question. Why would anyone think the federal reserve is private?
The post office, the army, and the president of the united states get their paychecks from the government. The fed is a secretive organization and no one has any idea who they are or what they are doing. If they were "public" we would know that would we not?
This might be a repeat of a comment that did not seem to post. The post office the army and the president get their paychecks from the US government. The fed is a secretive organization we know nothing about, we have no oversight over, or can even verify that they have americas best interest at heart whereas the other entities you mentioned should.
The federal reserve is as much a government entity as the post offics, the army, and the PRESIDENT. To draw a distinction between state granted monopolies and the state itself is arbitrary. Would the post office be considered a private entity? No.
So why would the federal reserve be considered private?
I don't know who has more power. But yes, there are countless ways for private interests to influence decisions. Also, technically I don't believe in the government, I see them as regular human beings...who get away with criminal acts because they call themselves the "government".
Most Americans don't have a sound mastery of the English language, and when they say the FED is private; they're just trying to differentiate from the idea that it is an institution under the federal government...in my opinion. The way I understood the term was that it is privately owned by the shareholders I affectionately refer to as the Rockefeller/Rothschild clique.
I don't draw any distinction. Rockefeller/Rothschild (ect) are as much a part of the state as is the president. They are in positions of illegitimate privilege that would not exist without the criminal organization known as the state.
something about the way you speak to the camera makes me want to beat the shit out of you, and definitely not listen to you. Ethos Pathos Logos you inept clown.
yahlers 3 years ago
he doesnt seem to understand that a private institution bought our government in 1913. maybe he thinks ben bernanke was chosen by congress as a candidate for his job. perhaps he is just so immersed in this system that he cannot see his way out of it. either way hes in for a wild ride if he looks into it. ABOLISH THE FED! the charter runs out in 4 years!
oiuoiu988 3 years ago
also, agreed that they got tons more power than other businesses. Lots of corporations get unfair advantages though and they're still private...though are usually referred to as partially public.
And you hit the nail on the head that it doesn't happen through the free market. It only happens when big business gets in bed with government.
And agreed on Chomsky. You once again hit the nail on the head. People should be wary any time someone uses the mantle of humanitarianism to spread tyranny.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
It's a private bank...but I see nothing wrong with that. It's not in their interest for the US economy to be bad. I'm just against the notion of central planning...but hey if it is going to happen then might as well be done by someone who knows what they're doing.
Agreed with you on NAFTA. It's really managed trade. Free trade wouldn't need all sorts of regulations etc.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
The way you speak is condescending and frustrating. Furthermore, perhaps you should consider that PHD. Noam Chomsky has been studying issues such as this for longer than you have been alive. I don't believe I'll be subscribing to this channel, since I feel your trying to get hits by patronizing intellects that are far beyone your scope of worldly perception.
chimpo1248 3 years ago
The federal reserve is a Private sector of the government. It is designed to help other privately owned systems. However, it was publicly created (long time ago). Therefor it is even worse than a normal private organization. IT IS A NATIONAL SOCIALIST COMPANY. Hmm... I remember something that used this National Socialist label. Go find out.
PairoftheSocks 3 years ago
have you seen ZEITGEIST..
open your eyes dude..
osolugarajeno 3 years ago
I think you're confused about what is "public" and what is "private". The Fed might be in some ways public, but it's job is to protect private interests. It's shareholders are private banks like JP Morgan Chase to whom the they sold Bear Stearns stock for $2 a share. It could be called public because it doesn't collect profit within it's self. But it is private as in it is not accountable to the people of the government and plays to the needs of its private shareholders.
zapata420 3 years ago
quote "So yes, the Federal Reserve is a "private" bank, but they are a private bank who has been given enormous amounts of special privileges and rights..."
zapata420 3 years ago
You are confused...
id1337x 3 years ago
as far as im concerned, there is no such thing as public property. everything is at one point owned by an individual.
and chomsky is a dick.
sexdrugsRnR 3 years ago
I find by READING Chomsky, that he links every single one of his assumptions with fact, for example he defends Palestinians because they are denied liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness by Israeli fences, attack helicopters, and the denial of rights. Now you oppose this because... he's a hypocrite... now it sounds as though you are the hypocrite here and he is not.
Terrorera 3 years ago
Public institution in this country means by the people, of the people, and for the people, whereas a private institution in this country usually means for profit, or for me. What you just said sounds like a very good arguement just to sit on our asses and watch the world whisked away by profit incentives and not public incentives. When Congress cannot tell what is going inside the Fed, that means this is a conflict between private and public institutions. Dont just listen to Chomsky, Read him.
Terrorera 3 years ago
Now, what I just said means, by the meaning of words, means that Congress is held to coin money and regulate the value of it. Noam Chomsky kind of relates everything he says to historical fact. You might want to check the membership of the Federal Reserve, oh nevermind, you can't. Public institutions MEAN that they are INSTITUTIONS controlled by PUBLIC ENTITIES. The Fed is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. A PRIVATE INSTITUTION MEANS THAT IT IS CONTROLLED BY PRIVATE ENTITITES.
Terrorera 3 years ago
If you'd like free trade I think that you would be opposed to the Fed. If you don't like state-run capitalism you would also be opposed to the Fed. If there is no list of membership, and a governmental institution made by the people, of the people, and for the people, cannot even figure out what is going on inside of it. Furthermore, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states :To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures...
Terrorera 3 years ago
LUKE, if the Fed is public then show me or tell me where I can find a list of the banks that comprise membership. Fractional banking is the biggest scam on the face of the planet.
Both you and Chomsky are entitled to your opinions, however, the more valid one is the one that can be supported with factual evidence. I've seen his, where is yours? Arguing over the meaning of "public" and "private" is meaningless.....it's actions, not words that matter.
Krummy2k6 3 years ago
wow, you are way off track there bub..
revosuicide86 3 years ago
its a public bank in the sense that congress created it (under a somewhat shady vote).
its NOT a public bank in the sense that its ownership is PRIVATE. the shareholders include some of the biggest banks, lender, finaciers... including jpmorgan/chase.
just wait til you stupid fuckers go to your bank and they say "sorry - outta money"
DO NOT put any of your USD into a bank account. spend it immediately (trade it for actual commodity) do not keep USD. they are losing value so fast. buy gold?
quarknimble 3 years ago
The federal reserve is a private bank because it is a business, which is not elected by the people and under no oversight by any government.
scientistwriter 3 years ago
It's all based off the central bank ideology from Europe. Federal Reserve is a private bank, you can see that in 2004 when they bailed out a Private company(Bear Sterns) and let JP Morgan & Chase buy it out for penny's on the dollar.(stock was worth $171 a share, JP bought it for $10 a share). Under your principles, that was taxpayer money(public) used then to bust out a private company. Technically illegal, but it wasnt because the Fed is not a public company.
hearingjuan 3 years ago
Also. The its an ideological battle of princples against private institutions. That is to say, a private company will always be after it's best interest vs a public company. Granted most times those best interest correlate, where as any instition not after the best interest of the society it lives in is doomed. However understand that just because you live on the up side of those best interest, you are somehow immune to the negative effects of the institution. Institutions have no "patriotism".
hearingjuan 3 years ago
It will look after it's best interest, and the best part about it, it can operate from just about anywhere. During the great depression, or rather transfer of wealth(caused by the Federal Reserve), was every single American in a depression? Of course not, just the majority, but that minority if anything got wealthier. So really the question you have to ask yourself, is whether you believe we have the ability to govern ourselves or if we need private institutions to do so. Chomsky believes we can
hearingjuan 3 years ago
You clearly don't know your ass from your elbow.
cheyneisaperson 3 years ago 2
this video sucks.
The bank called Fed reserve may call itself a public bank (because the federation supposively represents a public community called the US of america).. but that so called public bank acts VERY secretly and privately.
Weddze 3 years ago
so lets see= the public bank only rewards those who help it become private..
it looks acts and sounds just like a private bank. So maybe i will call it what it is PRIVATE. I dont see you withdrawing out of it. o yes thats it the public service banking communy stole it and spent it on themselves but its still public honest
Weddze 3 years ago
take the power back. please wake up to the blatent facts. the fed reserve is another name for the inbred jewish banking conspirators child raping community. You thaught you were safe from english (who took england hostage over 100yrs ago) hostage takers called the rothchilds and rockerfellers.
they are setting up the North American Union And are changing us dollars to the Amero, after they have crashed your economy, all to consolidate wealth and continue fucking your small children while u r 3
Weddze 3 years ago
a bank is our bank when we can spend its savings. a bank is a private bank when we cant. if its just a safe with someone own private (personal) elses money/gold in it its their private bank.
Ok your bank acount is your private lot within a public bank. but a bank that you pay into and cant withdraw is someone elses private bank. you are giving money away.
Look the federal reserve was a stealth tax used in the name of social/national security when really its a bunch of inbred jews who kidnap kids
Weddze 3 years ago
they Buy the law
Weddze 3 years ago
Luke, so confused..let me help. There's no 1 word that describes the Fed as far as its "public"/"private" character. When someone like Chomsky classifies an institution as "private" in the course of the 000's of other words used in analyzing the case, they mean it operates for profit of whoever owns it. The fact that govt. grants it privilege is another problem which Chomsky condemns..What would you have him do? Come up w/ 1 word to define what he clearly says about it overall..ridiculous!
ElDukerino1 4 years ago
The federal government profits from the Fed, not the Fed itself. The Fed for all practical purposes is a government agency.
DackBev 4 years ago
DackBev, you may be right that govt profits, depends on your definition of govt (WHO are you talking about) and how you value the Fed's services vs. cost of the privilege given to private interests.
If by govt you mean the public it's supposed to represent, I disagree, don't think service is worthwhile.
If by govt you mean literally the beuracracy itself, yes it profits enormously from existence of Fed, smoke & mirrors enabling huge financing & private privilege cost is just marginal issue.
ElDukerino1 4 years ago
Year man, didn't quite understand all of your comment but i now you disagree with this videos determined meaningless. I think if a bank that calls itself public but act just like a public bank , then you have a choice whether or not to believe a lie and call it public (and therefore fuck up your brain with wrong understanding / perception of public) or you can call it what it appears to be (and Is progressively turning into)
Weddze 3 years ago
have you watched the movie Zeitgeist?
arknihil 4 years ago
No matter how you slice it, public institutions in general are much more accountable than private institutions. This only works however if people pay attention because the people have more power over the public than the private. Also the thing I don't get about libertarians/anarchists, is the massive distrust of government, yet the seemingly blind faith in privatization. Both of them are powerful people who shouldn't be trusted.
andrewrberkshire 4 years ago
Individuals making up a local community within an extended order of human cooperation need not be any less adept at displaying atruism or group solidarity than members of a "tribal society". Indeed, there is much lore of small town hospitality and community where nobody locks their doors, and there is truth to these accounts. But the breakdown of our value system has changed things. Intervention through central command, a central gov't, is not compatible with any extended order of men.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Perhaps we may begin to agree here. I argue that communities cannot be engineered. I oppose all "central planners" and "social engineers". A "government" may be justified only so far as it is useful to keep the peace, to keep marauders at bay. The core of my opposition is with the interventions of bureaucrats and distant do-gooders into matters for which they hold no understanding nor legitimate authority. I resent that our representatives act as toddlers playing with gasoline and matches.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Moreover, I resent that so many seem to embrace such intervention into their lives and communities. How can we change this? The only way I know is for people to talk about it. Hence, why I take the time to write this. Sadly, I'm convinced that things have to get really bad before enough people desire fundamental change. Yet I doubt that the conditions are such that people will make a change for the better. I fear and expect that Americans will continue to look to D.C. for solutions.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Another reason why it's not private is that it's controlled by the Board of Governors, who are appointed by the government. True private property is not only not given special privileges by the government but also is not controlled by the government.
DackBev 4 years ago
We did not create property, not by decree. It developed over much time as a tradition. Theft became taboo, and was later prohibited by religions. The group(s) that adopted it for whatever reasons advnanced over those that did not. This process brought other traditions and institutions to prominance including money, trade, honest, contract, etc. As these were more widely adopted, productivity increased. These traditions and institutions are required for any successful "society".
mariasman100 4 years ago
The traditions and institutions that have developed over thousands of years are required to sustain civilization as we know it. Property, money, trade, honesty, contract, and laws to enforce these are required to sustain any expansive cooperation of men. Without these, your collectivist anarchy could not advance far above the primitive tribal groups that we see today. The U.S. is in decline today precisely because these traditions and institutions are no longer respected as they were.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Your error lies in assuming that instincts such as altruism and group solidarity, necessary for sustaining humans in tribal settings, are sufficient to form and to maintain the extended order of human cooperation that exists today. Human cultural evolution over thousands of years selected traditions and institutions that make civilization possible. We did not select them; they selected us. Some of these include saving, property, trade, money, honesty, contract, and rule of law.
mariasman100 4 years ago
These traditions and institutions that characterize individualism (classical liberalism) were required for humans to advance beyond a primitive hand-to-mouth existence, and they are also necessary to sustain civilization. Reverting back to the altruism and group solidarity characterized by the various collectivist experiments during the 20th century must lead to a steady decline in viability and increase in human suffering. And the evidence bears this out.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Really bizarre twist-o via the words there that I never really thought about before. Anyway, I can see how it is both.
It is obviously public, because it's 'supposed' to be controlled by the public.
But it's corporate shares are not publicly on WallStreet for purchase. So, in the sense of ownership, it is private.
Sepero1 4 years ago
fr3thinker, I focus on money a lot because I've come to understand well how fiat credit expansion causes the business cycle. The cyclical misallocations of capital caused by inflation, essentially taking us 3 steps forward then 2 steps back, prevents an incalculable quantity of wealth from coming into being, and also tends to concentrate wealth. As the process continues wealth creation becomes nearly impossible without accelerating inflation, and at the risk of destroying the currency.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Well, we can't just scrap fiat moneys and go to gold suddenly. I like the idea of simply legalizing what Bernard von NotHaus has done. Let people make pretty gold and silver 'coins' and sell them on the market. People may keep them or trade as they wish. Sounds like freedom to me. I do believe that gold can be money today more easily than ever by incorporating digital accounting (debit cards) with gold warehousing, all done privately of course.
mariasman100 4 years ago
The gold debit card idea introduces a gold currency that would trade with fiat currencies according to a ratio that would change on the market like currency exchange ratios today. People could use a "gold card" sometimes, or use a fiat money card (for example, when the value of gold is rising). Governments would hate this because when they start inflating the people will more likely hold gold and spend the fiat money causing hyperinflation quickly, thus spoiling their inflation schemes.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Just a thought, but have you ever wondered that perhaps calling for everyone to "voluntarily communize their resources for the mutual benefit of all", in a sense honoring complete strangers, even those who may be perceived as enemies, above one's own family and friends, might just go against the grain of human nature? And maybe, must maybe mind you, enforcing such human behavior in many cases requires the brutal tactics that we've come to associate with collectivist experiments?
mariasman100 4 years ago
The point is that they weren't all panning for gold then, and we all wouldn't do it today either. Only a handful of people can turn a profit in gold exploration. It's a silly notion that should be dropped. Inflation - most of it occurred after 1970. Are you not concerned that the average CPI is so much higher than your "3-5%" standard that you invoked earlier? Are you concerned that the real CPI is today nearly 10%? Your Federal Reserve Note, by your own standards, is not stable.
mariasman100 4 years ago
(1)Please explain how a "more industrialised world" necessarily requires a fiat currency? If the world became "more complex", then wouldn't an international currency (i.e. gold) simplify monetary transactions? (2)There is plenty of gold available, and money is not only a medium of exchange, but should also be a store of value (a quality sorely lacking in the Federal Reserve Note). (4)A central bank would not likely have the discipline required to remain on a gold standard for long. But...
mariasman100 4 years ago
... we can return to a gold standard incrementally by introducing a parallel gold standard to compete with the Federal Reserve Note. After all, the Constitution states plainly that no State shall "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".
mariasman100 4 years ago
I will be happy to address all of your points a bit later, but until then I hope that you will discuss my former response on the rampant inflation of the Federal Reserve Note and how it conflicts with your discussion of fiat monetary stability. One at a time please, it gets really messy otherwise.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Gold was money during the industrial revolution that saw productivity gains greater than today. Why were so many people starting businesses and working in factories during the late 1800's? Why were they all not "panning for gold"? What conditions today (if any) make it such that a return to gold as money is simply not possible? Also, please address my former post on the rampant inflation of the Federal Reserve Note.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Are you concerned with the inflation engineered by the Fed since its inception, especially since 1971 when the Federal Reserve Note severed all ties to gold? The FRN has lost value during the last 40 years by a factor of about 12 (an average annual CPI of about 7%). The real CPI today is approaching 10%. Any comments on the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar from 1789 until the advent of the Fed remained nearly constant (during which time the dollar was defined as 1/20 ounce of gold)?
mariasman100 4 years ago
Question: What do you mean by "stable form of money supply"? I consider a commodity money (gold) to be far more stable than any fiat money. I hope you will clarify your position.
mariasman100 4 years ago
There's 'public problems' perpetuated by 'private institutions.' Look at Blackwater! Luke, I have compunctions with your thoughts on 'private institutions' and 'free market,' because you continusouly fail to see the havoc it bestows on devloping countries. You seem to acknowledge it, but remain in denial in order to maintain Your definition of these said things Luke, the FDR is a private institution ok. Likewise, NAFTA symbolizes the western concepts of free trade.
eyemran 4 years ago
Calling Blackwater a "private institution" is problematic. As I wrote in an earlier comment, Blackwater is not quite "private" in the same sense that my brother's locksmith shop is a private business. In much the same way it's problematic to call NAFTA "free trade". Free trade doesn't require an act of Congress and hundreds of pages of regulations. As Ron Paul says, NAFTA is best called "managed trade".
mariasman100 4 years ago
mariasman100 - Perhaps it's 'problematic' for you but not for I my friend. Blackwater is a 'private' contracting security firm enlisted by the U.S. goverment to do their bidding while keeping their hands clean. They also were employed during Katrina. 'Private' institutions believe they're exempt from public regulation, hence why Blackwater agents kill with impunity.
We can draw dististinctions all day, but academia, world famous enonomicist like Joseph Stiglitz quality it as free trade.
eyemran 4 years ago
You're merely playing with words here. Blackwater is enlisted by the U.S. government to do their bidding. The U.S. military is enlisted by the U.S. government to do their bidding. The gov't is gaming the system. For example, if the government decides to draft my brother (the locksmith) and force him to pick locks and circumvent security systems for the FBI to make sneak and peak searches under the Patriot act, then is my brother's locksmith shop still a "private" business?...
mariasman100 4 years ago
... Based on your arguments so far no doubt you will say yes. But, clearly, there is a fundamental difference. Indeed, what characterizes a "free market" and truly "private institutions" are the actions of sovereign individuals acting under freedom of association (w/o compulsion) and within a framework of laws (or traditions) that protect the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. Under this light it can be seen that my brother crosses a line once he starts breaking into homes...
mariasman100 4 years ago
...Likewise, free trade is nothing more than a free market without boundaries. Just as the actions of individuals are not arbitrarily restricted in a free market, the freedom for individuals to engage in trade across borders cannot be arbitrarily restricted to qualify as free trade. As I wrote before, free trade doesn't require an act of Congress and hundreds of pages of regulations, Joseph Stiglitz notwithstanding.
mariasman100 4 years ago
NOTE: My argument where my brother was "drafted" should read "hired" to be more analogous to the role played by Blackwater.
mariasman100 4 years ago
I'm 'merely playing with words?' And you're not? Go to Blackwater's USA home page. Under 'Company Profile' it clearly states that they provide solutions from the 'private sector' to the U.S. Government and non U.S. Government clients. Operating under the auspices of free association, because they're a private firm, they're able to market themselves to and influence the 'public sphere,' including state agencies. Of course they're 'gaming the system.'
eyemran 4 years ago
So your brother's business is private institution I'm assuming? The state can't trangress it's own laws right? That would be illogical and the state is founded on 'reason.' However, it can circumvent it's own regulation by employing private institutions to achieve a desired end. You've got me, yes, I still think it's a private institution because it's legally defined as such (aspiring attorney). Like I was saying to Luke1200, to which he hasn't respondd to.
eyemran 4 years ago
Like me my friend, you are very idealistic. I will say this - there is nothing which exist without 'boundaries' as you referred to them. Everything is grounded in a finite world, so to argue that something is/can be free of boundaries or limitations is not an accurate honest depiction of reality itself. Precisely why 'post-modern' theory doesn't work, including 'post-modern' economics.
Of course I've considered voluntary giving, but again, is it realistic? What obligates me to others?
eyemran 4 years ago
Am I idealistic? I'm not so sure. I cannot permit what I see as contradictions to go unchallenged. This should be seen as practical and not idealistic. After all, contradictions don't exist. But of course there is so much play in the English language that wordsmiths are often tempted to choose a consistent argument in lieu of one that is consistent with reality. The two are not necessarily the same, of course. I'll go with natural law, and let others consider the "legal" definitions.
mariasman100 4 years ago
I would like to pursue thie matter further regardless of 'form (in a 'Platonic' sense)' and semantics for I too cannot permit contradictions to go unchallenged. I said you're ideal because you posited that something can exist without limitations, i.e. the market, and I simply disagree on that front.
Do you have a camera, because I would like to try and 'de-limit' this conversation. I prefer responding via vids. Anyways, could you further qualify 'natural law?'
eyemran 4 years ago
As I suspected, it's all a matter of semantics, of definitions. Truthfully, we may as well be writing in different languages. I cannot accept a "legal" definition if doing so leads inexorably to a contradiction with natural law. Again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
mariasman100 4 years ago
(On Blackwater) There are fundamental differences between Blackwater and other organizations that are considered to be part of the "private sector". Therefore, a distinction, a qualification if you will, should be made. A failure to respect this difference and make this distinction will result in a contradiction, as rhetorical definitions often do. I suspect that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
mariasman100 4 years ago
I used 'Blackwater' as a 'mere' example to illustrate how private institutions can influence the public sphere. I don't understand the moment when a legally defined private institution becomes public just because it's utilized by public agencies. So yes, a distinction should be made! What are the differences between 'Blackwater' per se, and any other private firms that freely associate and market themselves to the state? I'ld like to know. Is it the degree to which they influence the public?
eyemran 4 years ago
(on private/public institutions) The dynamics of what I consider to be a "free market" seems to break down with violations of the "rule of law", which I define as the condition where all laws in their respective jurisdictions apply to all individuals without qualifications. Futhermore, the government should recognize no entity beyond the individual. In other words, no special privileges...
mariasman100 4 years ago
...Beyond this 'ideal', there seems to be a gradient that extends from, for example, my brother's locksmith shop all the way to some of the actions of President Bush (a "public" figure), or even Blackwater (a "private" business). So, perhaps it is degree with which actions both violate the rule of law, and yet are sanctioned by the law itself that characterizes the "public sphere". Or maybe I'm just really cynical. ;-)
mariasman100 4 years ago
Indeed! There's always this gradient of measurement and I ask, who has the authority to make this judgement? Arguably, no one does, and here, you are right - we are playing language games. But since no one can make that call, I go off what history shows and tells me. I understand that a 'true free market' is probably the most ideal form of economics, but that's based on the assumption (an ideal one) that such an arrangement would be permitted to exist. Or perhaps I'm cynical as well!
eyemran 4 years ago
;-) yeah, we're probably both a couple of cynics! I was typing out some more comments, but I really need more space to clarify my position. I'll be sending you a message in a bit, so if you have have to enable me to send it then please do so.
mariasman100 4 years ago
When I intervened the force of law, I hope I didn't do it in a manner in which it becomes the crux of my argument. If so, I apologize because I too don't really acknowledge the force of law. But practically, I do everyday, just like you! In order go onto Youtube, there's specific contractual agreements, albeit ones that none of us read, but yet we still acknowledge and abide to. Furthermore, in my eyes, law is applied discriminately, not indiscriminately - a power reserved to elitist.
eyemran 4 years ago
I don't really understand the question posed here, if you brother isn't drafted but willing contracts to the government to engage in these activities what does that change? If instead of engaging in these activities for the government say GE has him engage in these activities on their behalf what is his shop then? Sure the US government is a larger organization than GE but I don't see any principled difference in terms of the resulting behavior.
pilatech 4 years ago
(reposted) "But, clearly, there is a fundamental difference. Indeed, what characterizes a "free market" and truly "private institutions" are the actions of sovereign individuals acting under freedom of association (w/o compulsion) and within a framework of laws (or traditions) that protect the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. Under this light it can be seen that my brother crosses a line once he starts breaking into homes"
mariasman100 4 years ago
Essentially what I'm doing is arguing indirectly that the distinction between "public" and "private" is arbitrary. I am saying that whether or not behavior is just or unjust is the proper distinction. It's almost a defining feature of gov't today that they violate individual rights through force of law, whereas "private" organizations do not have this 'privilege', unless they enlist with the gov't (but here they are effectively just another arm of gov't). I believe it's an important distinction.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Good vid. Private institutions are... are... private institutions. Great!
People commenting that China is communist. Great when China constitutionally recognizes private property.
Slave wages caused by attack on free association. Awesome. Probably looking at one expected trend of the capitalist market: to create of an offer supply in the offer will be better. "Slave wages" are just the result of an oversupply in the workforce offer. What does free association has to do with this?
TheCZMan 4 years ago
The road to torture. Make an update. The Fed is the new evil. Stating simple facts like the Fed benefiting the average US Joe can turn you into an annoyance. Just looking straight into the fact to see that the Fed has been helping to transfer real asset to the US from the rest of the world against an ever devalued money paper will make you no friend.
Look at the answers: the Fed is neither a private nor publci bank. Guys have found the root of all evil: the Fed. Better to listen to them.
TheCZMan 4 years ago
As if 'you're only against CB because you're an anarchist' is not a ridiculous argument? I was perfectly serious, BTW.
Moragauth 4 years ago
So who then enforces others to share equally?
theoriginalanomaly 4 years ago
No it want be worthless... It will be worth what people value it for.
Full disclaimer that this is a fiat currency is not a fraud!
lordmetroid 4 years ago
or should work in some perfect pretend world in the future. He makes clear distinctions between the government, which is of the people, and the powerful state which is a necessity to private power and an existing violent and coercive corporate arm. Their private power is not your private power. Private corporations for the most part are hierarchical and non-democratic and yes absolutely tyrannical and it's foolish for you to equate with them and come out on their top-down behalf.
bendymind 4 years ago
Not that will lead to their oppression, dear, that have led. Chomsky isn't a statist. It is yes a public problem, but there is in no way public ownership or control over these institutions. They are owned by private entities called corporations, which are not persons but are certainly treated as such under the law. Chomsky talks about 'really existing market theory' which is the way that things are actually working not the way they would...
bendymind 4 years ago
Why not just admit that you are clueless of economics? That'd be the better way to go, IMO.
Moragauth 4 years ago
I beg to differ. It is the boss, and the government officials follow their rules. The FEDs shareholders are also the people that "own" the CFR and the "UN." When you say "nobody 'owns' the CFR and the UN" I reply, "that is the wonderful thing about corporate America...Prove It"
(what I mean is few people have the resources to prove it [wonderful was sarcasm])
These are the "shadowy overlords" that the Onion video was referring to.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
The federal reserve is a private bank in the sense that it has private individuals as shareholders who profit from its operation in much the same way shareholders of any companies stock do so. And yes the federal reserve is handed a state monopoly of sorts, much as many large 'private' companies receive massive state subsidies and legal protections and so forth. I can't say I understand your gripe with Chomsky here, I read a lot of his stuff, I don't agree with all of it but I generally...
pilatech 4 years ago
find him to be pretty well informed and generally rational and honest. The primary issue that he seems to raise regarding these 'private institutions' is exactly how interwoven they are into the governments machinery and how they use that machinery to screw everyone else. I think I agree with your general sentiments but your message here seems misdirected, rambling and over all frustrated. Frustrating place this world of ours isn't it?
pilatech 4 years ago
While there may be similarities, it seems to me that there are too many important differences to call the Fed a "private" bank, and certainly not in the same sense that my brother's locksmith shop is a "private" business. Of course, the "public" designation doesn't quite fit either. Perhaps "cartel" or "monopoly" are better terms?
mariasman100 4 years ago
What about when communist countries exploit its own people in order to create slave like labour that it can then sell out to the rest of the world for tremendous growth? What about socialist countries that create treat their own people like cattle, torture, and destroy opposition? Lets talk about China and the Soviet Union for a minute or two? Oh, you say they aren't true social/communists? Oh, well I believe Luke has mentioned he doesn't really believe "Capitalist" markets are truely capitalist
theoriginalanomaly 4 years ago 2
Blame MSN/hotmail. :)
Moragauth 4 years ago
Okay, I see what you're referring to now.
Moragauth 4 years ago
Does this mean that you are no longer a Chomsky fan? (I think I remember you saying that you admired him or something)
RaddNiner 4 years ago
nevermind, should have watched the whole video first.
RaddNiner 4 years ago
ya...
Luke12000 4 years ago
In 1913 Paul Warburg rewrote the US Monopoly rules "The Federal Reserve Bank" became a privately owned Central Bank free of Government control.
They also created the "Income Tax Act" & the IRS. These European banksters became "The Fed" in 1913 and have owned a virtual monoply over the US economy and the tax payers money ever since. The American people pay income tax to these bankster even though it is against the Constitution. Why???
lynnkathleenkirk 4 years ago
Because it's the law!!!
;P
Luke12000 4 years ago
Euhm... Statute! A statute is a "Legislated rule of society which has the force of law." makes all the difference in application.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Euhm... Statute! A statute is a "Legislated rule of society which has the force of law." makes all the difference in application.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Politicians and bankers should not be able to just make money and punish the majority for their mistakes. Just because it is popular doesnt mean it is the cool thing to do.
AzraelsJudgement 4 years ago
Money is merely a medium of exchange and arose separately from states, for technical reasons. Cows once served as 'money'. There is absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about it. It merely serves to facilitate exchange.
Moragauth 4 years ago
Without a government in China, Nike could still buy up people. Without a government anywhere, Nike wouldn't have to go to China. This is the market anarchist reality, and I'm sure many market anarchists agree with it.
gratex 4 years ago
"Without a government in China, Nike could still buy up people." And why would a market anarchist agree? Governments only add force to the equation.
Luke12000 4 years ago
I'll forgive the fact that you apparently just fell off the turnip truck.
Central banks serve the following purposes (all others are incidental):
Central banks allow for inflation (theft). That's the whole point.
Governments can either tax overtly (which pisses people off), or covertly (inflation) which people simply don't understand.
Central banks allow governments to fund wars. Governments can not practice imperialism/interventionism without a central bank.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Central banks allow for the transfer of wealth.
It's that simple. It's all just theft and violence (one way or another). That's the whole purpose.
It serves the bankers and the state equally.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Yep, they are the most efficient means to silently acquire funds, rather than taxation which is overt. Hence why more states adopt them, rather than this BS about 'stability' (though I am sure some people believe this rhetoric, just as some believe the war in Iraq was really needed - that is to say, they were misguided idiots.) The only 'stability' they insure is the state's.
Moragauth 4 years ago
agreed, but private armies did their share in supporting tyranny. One of the prime examples was the Thirty Years War. In fact they were the tyranny, much less supporting one. My point is, that no matter what system you have, you can't unring the bell. Knowledge of armaments and military science aren't going to disappear. Some asshole is going to use it.
cehbeach 4 years ago
do you guys ever get tired of discussing this crap.
jrnesbit 4 years ago 2
The government and big corporations are very similar entities in the end - concentrations of power with coercive forces over people. I don't think you can really separate the two. Forces of power will always cooperate for more power, it is a natural phenomenon.
TigrisVirgata 4 years ago
"Fascism should more appropriately called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power"
Benito Mussolini
TigrisVirgata 4 years ago
"Fascism is not anti-semitism, or militarism, or even corporatism. It is totalitarianism. It exists to whatever degree a government enforces through coercive means, directly or indirectly, compliance with an 'approved' means of living or manner of expression."
mariasman100 ;-)
mariasman100 4 years ago
Lets be clear. The FR and BOC are "public entities" that are controlled by private interests...period. NAFTA is a joke. Leave out North and it's accurate. R2D4Shawn...the Star Wars reference was quite hilarious. Luke, use the force to keep it to a couple of minutes please...that's the real challenge.
PS: Luke, what happened to the brow-bell??
beechboy55 4 years ago
"The FR and BOC are "public entities" that are controlled by private interests". I argue that ALL public institutions are (in some way) controlled by private interests.
And the brow-bell got infected :(
Luke12000 4 years ago
I agree with the you in the financial world but in the health care world, it is taboo. At least here in BC.
Too bad about the infection...the GF loves that shit. Did it hurt.......a lot??
beechboy55 4 years ago
"When words lose their meaning people will lose their liberty." Confucius
mariasman100 4 years ago
That quote is going on my front page!
Luke12000 4 years ago
One of my favorites! Sorry I didn't notice, but I'm not surprised. Based on the three videos of yours that I've seen in the last hour or so we tend to think alike.
mariasman100 4 years ago
Since when did Confucious give a shit about liberty?. He was a moralist that emphasized filial piety and social order. His philosophy is about obedience to the a moral code of ethics. This quote makes him sound more like Thomas Paine. My B.S. detector just went off.
cehbeach 4 years ago
Corporations are what put out this wage slavery. Corporations are private companies. The Federal Reserve Bank is actually part public part private. I understand your point although Its not entirely clear to me, the point the documentary was making was that U.S. corporations have gained too much power, and because the corporation its its own person, it can get away with wage labor in foreign countries through NAFTA. Email Chomsky your opinion, I have a couple times and he responds immediately.
Person009 4 years ago
You can e-mail chomsky?!?!
I'm totally doing that!!
Luke12000 4 years ago
where do I do that?
Luke12000 4 years ago
Maybe you can find out his e-mail at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's homepage under the linguist department.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
How can you possibly judge the efficiency/efficacy of a monopoly that's established and backed by force? The only way you could judge that is to subject the Fed to competition in a free market.
It's like if I claimed to be the best boxer in the world but used a gun to prevent anybody from beating me. If I need a gun, I'm probably not REALLY the bet boxer in the world.
If the Fed (or any government monopoly) is so effective and efficiency, why are they so afraid of a little competition?
D4Shawn 4 years ago 2
That was poetry shawn.
Luke12000 4 years ago
NAFTA isn't really about free trade? Oh noos! Next you're going to tell me that the Patriot Act doesn't actually have anything to do with patriotism. :(
P.S. I haven't forgotten about our rock off. I've jut been super busy moving into my new place and assembling IKEA furniture and all kinds of crazy stuff. Moving is a lot of work. I have my keyboard here though, so maybe I'll be able to rock your socks off tomorrow.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
If you want to admit rocking inferiority just say it...
Luke12000 4 years ago
Your reverse psychology won't work on me Luke. Neither will your Jedi training, or the fact that Darth Vader is your father! Your ass is grass whether you like it or not, and I'm the lawnmower that's going to rock the hair right off your head. Maybe I'll mow you a mohawk with my rock! While I'm at it, maybe I'll have sex with your sister Princess Leia. How you like them apples Mr. "I wish I could rock it like the Shawn does"?
D4Shawn 4 years ago
If my household engages in trade (barter based or currency based), than my household is a community that require goods to be imported, in other words our mini-society cannot be self-sustained. However I have done nothing immoral in the act of trading so to condemn me is absurd. THAT is why I don't agree with primitivists.
Luke12000 4 years ago
And to clarify, there is no divide between bartering and a currency based economy, because money is a comodity that is traded like any other.
Luke12000 4 years ago
I LOL'D at the related videos.
TehBANN3D 4 years ago
On a more serious note, I like to refer to the economic system we're under now as interventionism, since its obvious the factors influencing our market are not through free will and are instead tampered with by the state on a regular basis. Party Politics always boils down to who's going to "fix" the economy.
TehBANN3D 4 years ago 2
When Socialists are criticizing our current economic system, they are only criticizing the conditions of interventionism, so I don't pay attention to them. It acts as a giant straw man argument that a lot of criticisms tend to cling to.
TehBANN3D 4 years ago 2
But do you guys define civilization as Derrik Jensen does? Because he says civilization is any society that engages in trade...and that is absurd.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Luke...
You realize that your definition of 'private institution' is different than most peoples definition. Yet you think that they are the ones that have a misleading definition?
Who's most likely to have been mislead about certain words and concepts:
The person who is actually understood by most when speaking of those concepts because he has a similar definition.
Or the person who can't get his points across because his definition of concepts are completely different than everyone else's?
PuppyHate 4 years ago
If I was misled into defining 'potato' as what we now call a tomato and started having a conversation about the concept of a potato with normal people. The confusion that would ensue would cause any rational person would realize that their definition of potato is completely off the wall and useless if nobody defines it the same way. No sane person would think that it's everyone else that has the wrong concept of 'potato' and they're all being misled.
PuppyHate 4 years ago
Then define public/private. I know there are several definitions, I never disputed that. However, I defined my terms, while propagandists like you do not. I have no interest in faking respect for you, define your terms, and engage in intellectually honest debate, of go away (and stay away).
Luke12000 4 years ago
Especially given that we're discussing political economy/philosophy, clearly defined terms are necessary, given the concepts at play. The layman's conception of it simply will not do, as it is nowhere near precise enough and often so self-contradictory it isn't worth evoking. This isn't a case of substituting 'potato' for 'tomato', but clarifying how the terms work if they are to be meaningful at all. Before even arguing one must define their terms and justify the definition.
Moragauth 4 years ago
I dont really know what to think. I will say it does seem to be used to benefit a minority. I find central banks a threat to freedom with their monopoly over the money supply and using fiat money.
The way it was created was dishonest and some very powerful peole whos families still exist were behind its creation. It was not created to benefit regular citizens or liberty.
AzraelsJudgement 4 years ago
Indeed.
I take the Rothbardian position that corporations that receive more than %50 of their revenue from the state should be considered public.
Rorshak1313 4 years ago
Any person is public. Government created personhood, yes yours too!
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Than what is a non-aggressive citizen in an anarchistic society referred to as?
Luke12000 4 years ago
I don't know about you. But I don't speak legalese in my daily speech so I call people persons.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Good video, same point I've made many times.
Moragauth 4 years ago
You deserve a video response. Soon to come, Luke
buddhagem 4 years ago
I deserve one from Chomsky, but I know it'll never come.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Stupid shit like this pisses me off, Luke. Chomsky didn't name NAFTA; why blame him for what the political elite decided to call it? Chomsky has made it clear numerous times that these bastards misuse Adam Smith when they use this term. So why beat him up over it?
buddhagem 4 years ago
My critisisms of Chomskey are about his deceptive use of words like "public" and "private", if you wish to defend Chomskey, please do it on these grounds.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Conflating state capitalism and laissez faire capitalism is far too common among statist pseudo-intellectuals (a category I'm adding Chomsky to).
Luke12000 4 years ago
"What if one of them went bust and you had all or most of your money in that currency or that bank".
This is what is happening to the federal reserve, so this is hardly an argument against privatization. Competing currencies are what allowed America to avoid the national debt being imposed by Britain. Competing currencies do not create any more problems that competing languages.
Luke12000 4 years ago
It's great to see you so passionate. I just hope you don't give yourself an aneurysm.
AnarchyInYourHead 4 years ago
Were it a public institution you could find out who the shareholders were and how much money they printed this year. Congress would have oversight if it were public. It is not public. It is a private bank.
crazycatfguy 4 years ago
If the US government moves into martial law, and revokes all of it's obligations to the people, is it then private? When I say "public" I mean that it is part of the state? What is your definition of public?
Luke12000 4 years ago
In the context of government it is a government institution. If you want to talk about public restrooms that is a different. Turning over that much power to banks is the worst mistake this country has ever made. How would you describe the federal reserve to someone that believes it is a government agency without making them take a course in the meaning of words or etiology.
crazycatfguy 4 years ago
The federal reserve is a bank that has a state granted monopoly. Much like the army is a group of people with guns who have a state granted monopoly. Much like the post office is a bunch of mailmen who have a state granted monopoly. Referring to these institutions as "private" seems absurd. Once again, what is your definition of public/private?
Luke12000 4 years ago
Once again how would you describe the federal reserve to someone who thinks it is a government entity? I tried to answer your question at least try to answer mine.
crazycatfguy 4 years ago
"how would you describe the federal reserve to someone who thinks it is a government entity?"
The federal reserve IS a government entity, as much as the post office, the army, and the president of the United States. Perhaps I don't understand the question. Why would anyone think the federal reserve is private?
Luke12000 4 years ago
The post office, the army, and the president of the united states get their paychecks from the government. The fed is a secretive organization and no one has any idea who they are or what they are doing. If they were "public" we would know that would we not?
crazycatfguy 4 years ago
This might be a repeat of a comment that did not seem to post. The post office the army and the president get their paychecks from the US government. The fed is a secretive organization we know nothing about, we have no oversight over, or can even verify that they have americas best interest at heart whereas the other entities you mentioned should.
crazycatfguy 4 years ago
The federal reserve is as much a government entity as the post offics, the army, and the PRESIDENT. To draw a distinction between state granted monopolies and the state itself is arbitrary. Would the post office be considered a private entity? No.
So why would the federal reserve be considered private?
Luke12000 4 years ago
Luke in your opinion does the Federal reserve have more power then the branches of the federal government?
Also do you think people outside of our government can pull strings with it?
AzraelsJudgement 4 years ago
I don't know who has more power. But yes, there are countless ways for private interests to influence decisions. Also, technically I don't believe in the government, I see them as regular human beings...who get away with criminal acts because they call themselves the "government".
Luke12000 4 years ago
Couldnt agree more
AzraelsJudgement 4 years ago
Most Americans don't have a sound mastery of the English language, and when they say the FED is private; they're just trying to differentiate from the idea that it is an institution under the federal government...in my opinion. The way I understood the term was that it is privately owned by the shareholders I affectionately refer to as the Rockefeller/Rothschild clique.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
I don't draw any distinction. Rockefeller/Rothschild (ect) are as much a part of the state as is the president. They are in positions of illegitimate privilege that would not exist without the criminal organization known as the state.
Luke12000 4 years ago